I was one of those who called "no way" at first, but just yesterday I found this quote [danluu.com] from an Intel engineer. It was originally posted in a reddit thread [reddit.com] but has since been deleted - but not before being confirmed by other former engineers at Intel.
As someone who worked in an Intel Validation group for SOCs until mid-2014 or so I can tell you, yes, you will see more CPU bugs from Intel than you have in the past from the post-FDIV-bug era until recently.
That meeting there in late 2013 signalled a sea change at Intel to many of us who were there.
Well maybe it was, but these problems predate 2013. Guess the "validation" that was happening in the 18 years between 1995 and 2013 didn't amount to much.
I'm personally stunned to see the extend of the Intel-bashing. This "bug" has been around for years and everyone was fine. From a QA perspective, the product was (almost) perfect. Now, yes, a bug has been discovered after years... that's life.
I'm not an Intel fan but seriously, most people don't realize how tricky exploiting this flaw is. Yes, we have a good exploit now and it works remarkably well, which is why it is such a serious issue. But I can't blame Intel for that, except if they knew it was *that
The bug I can understand. I am more upset about Intel's disingenuous PR statements which conflate different exploits making it seem that their main competitor is no better.
For once I am happy about Intel's excessive market segmentation; it convinced me to go with AMD after the Pentium 4.
"I bet they were instructed to ignore the risk" (Score:5, Interesting)
I was one of those who called "no way" at first, but just yesterday I found this quote [danluu.com] from an Intel engineer. It was originally posted in a reddit thread [reddit.com] but has since been deleted - but not before being confirmed by other former engineers at Intel.
Re: (Score:2)
That meeting there in late 2013 signalled a sea change at Intel to many of us who were there.
Well maybe it was, but these problems predate 2013. Guess the "validation" that was happening in the 18 years between 1995 and 2013 didn't amount to much.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm personally stunned to see the extend of the Intel-bashing. This "bug" has been around for years and everyone was fine. From a QA perspective, the product was (almost) perfect. Now, yes, a bug has been discovered after years ... that's life.
I'm not an Intel fan but seriously, most people don't realize how tricky exploiting this flaw is. Yes, we have a good exploit now and it works remarkably well, which is why it is such a serious issue. But I can't blame Intel for that, except if they knew it was *that
Re:"I bet they were instructed to ignore the risk" (Score:2)
The bug I can understand. I am more upset about Intel's disingenuous PR statements which conflate different exploits making it seem that their main competitor is no better.
For once I am happy about Intel's excessive market segmentation; it convinced me to go with AMD after the Pentium 4.